[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Style Issues in Lisp and Scheme programming, setq versus let ... and

From: Swami Tota Ram Shankar
Subject: Re: Style Issues in Lisp and Scheme programming, setq versus let ... and onion structure with multiple cores or eyes or kernels Re: string to list or string to array
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 20:02:00 -0700 (PDT)
User-agent: G2/1.0

On Oct 22, 7:36 pm, PJ Weisberg <> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Swami Tota Ram Shankar
> <> wrote:
> > For example, the imperative programming style, flows nicely from top
> > to bottom. The eye has to move L->R and top to bottom to understand
> > the screenful module, as in C.
> > I have found that let, and functional style leads to an onion type
> > structure.
> > f(g(h(x,y),z,k(alpha,beta,l(theta)))w)
> That could be valid C code, but it's probably not Lisp code, unless
> you really do have a function named "x,y".
> > If it is short, its not an issue, but the multiple cores or eyes of
> > the onion, makes it impossible to grasp the structure.
> Just one small tip: when reading lisp code, pay more attention to the
> indentation then to the parentheses.  Of course the
> compiler/interpreter doesn't pay attention to the indentation, but the
> author probably did.

Can you suggest some skeleton

(defun function (var1 var2 var3)
(interactive "swith strings and \ns to allow suggested defaults and
avoid typing and simply RTN")

  taking care of defaults if null or ""

  (let* (()()())



btw, lisp's prefix notation, (f x y z) is more expressive and
convenient for expressing currying (((f x) y) z) than f(x y z).

I expect incisive and penetrating analysis of code organization and
using that to improve readability.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]